Changes in Health Care and Prescription Medication Affordability in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: In the US, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant rise in unemployment and economic loss that disproportionately impacted low-income individuals. It is unknown how health care and prescription medication affordability changed among low-income adults during the COVID-19 pandemic overall and compared with their higher-income counterparts. Objective: To evaluate changes in health care affordability and prescription medication affordability during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021 and 2022) compared with pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels (2019) and whether income-based inequities changed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included adults 18 years and older participating in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in 2019, 2021, and 2022. Low-income adults were defined as having a household income of 200% or less of the federal poverty level (FPL); middle-income adults, 201% to 400% of the FPL; and high-income adults, more than 400% of the FPL. Data were analyzed from June to November 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measures of health care affordability and prescription medication affordability. Results: The study population included 89 130 US adults. Among the weighted population, 51.6% (95% CI, 51.2-52.0) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 48.0 (0.12) years. Compared with prepandemic levels, during the COVID-19 pandemic, low-income adults were less likely to delay medical care (2022: 11.2%; 95% CI, 10.3-12.1; 2019: 15.4%; 95% CI, 14.3-16.4; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81) or avoid care (2022: 10.7%; 95% CI, 9.7-11.6; 2019: 14.9%; 95% CI, 13.8-15.9; aRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.80) due to cost, while high-income adults experienced no change, resulting in a significant improvement in income-based disparities. Low-income and high-income adults were less likely to experience problems paying medical bills but experienced no change in worrying about medical bills during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with prepandemic levels. Across measures of prescription medication affordability, low-income adults were less likely to delay medications (2022: 9.4%; 95% CI, 8.4-10.4; 2019: 12.7%; 95% CI, 11.6-13.9; aRR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.84), not fill medications (2022: 8.9%; 95% CI, 8.1-9.8; 2019: 12.0%; 95% CI, 11.1-12.9; aRR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83), skip medications (2022: 6.7%; 95% CI, 5.9-7.6; 2019: 10.1%; 95% CI, 9.1-11.1; aRR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77), or take less medications (2022: 7.3%; 95% CI, 6.4-8.1; 2019: 11.2%; 95% CI, 10.%-12.2; aRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.74) due to costs, and these patterns were largely similar among high-income adults. Improvements in measures of health care and prescription medication affordability persisted even after accounting for changes in health insurance coverage and health care use. These patterns were similar when comparing measures of affordability in 2021 with 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: Health care affordability improved for low-income adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in a narrowing of income-based disparities, while prescription medication affordability improved for all income groups. These findings suggest that the recent unwinding of COVID-19 pandemic-related safety-net policies may worsen health care affordability and widen existing income-based inequities.

Handheld Lung Ultrasound to Detect COVID-19 Pneumonia in Inpatients: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Background: Chest imaging, including chest X-ray (CXR) and computed tomography (CT), can be a helpful adjunct to nucleic acid test (NAT) in the diagnosis and management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Lung point of care ultrasound (POCUS), particularly with handheld devices, is an imaging alternative that is rapid, highly portable, and more accessible in low-resource settings. A standardized POCUS scanning protocol has been proposed to assess the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia, but it has not been sufficiently validated to assess diagnostic accuracy for COVID-19 pneumonia. Purpose: To assess the diagnostic performance of a standardized lung POCUS protocol using a handheld POCUS device to detect patients with either a positive NAT or a COVID-19-typical pattern on CT scan. Methods: Adult inpatients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and a recent CT were recruited from April to July 2020. Twelve lung zones were scanned with a handheld POCUS machine. Images were reviewed independently by blinded experts and scored according to the proposed protocol. Patients were divided into low, intermediate, and high suspicion based on their POCUS score. Results: Of 79 subjects, 26.6% had a positive NAT and 31.6% had a typical CT pattern. The receiver operator curve for POCUS had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.787 for positive NAT and 0.820 for a typical CT. Using a two-point cutoff system, POCUS had a sensitivity of 0.90 and 1.00 compared to NAT and typical CT pattern, respectively, at the lower cutoff; it had a specificity of 0.90 and 0.89 compared to NAT and typical CT pattern at the higher cutoff, respectively. Conclusions: The proposed lung POCUS protocol with a handheld device showed reasonable diagnostic performance to detect inpatients with a positive NAT or typical CT pattern for COVID-19. Particularly in low-resource settings, POCUS with handheld devices may serve as a helpful adjunct for persons under investigation for COVID-19 pneumonia.

Health Care Access and Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Among Working-Age US Adults During the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Low-income working-age US adults disproportionately experienced health care disruptions at the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Little is known about how health care access and cardiovascular risk factor management changed as the pandemic went on or if patterns differed by state Medicaid expansion status. METHODS: Cross-sectional data from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system were used to compare self-reported measures of health care access and cardiovascular risk factor management among US adults aged 18 to 64 years in 2021 (pandemic) to 2019 (prepandemic) using multivariable Poisson regression models. We assessed differential changes between low-income (<138% federal poverty level) and high-income (>400% federal poverty level) working-age adults by including an interaction term for income group and year. We then evaluated changes among low-income adults in Medicaid expansion versus nonexpansion states using a similar approach. RESULTS: The unweighted study population included 80 767 low-income and 184 136 high-income adults. Low-income adults experienced improvements in insurance coverage (relative risk [RR], 1.10 [95% CI, 1.08-1.12]), access to a provider (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.09-1.14]), and ability to afford care (RR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.05-1.09]) in 2021 compared with 2019. While these measures also improved for high-income adults, gains in coverage and ability to afford care were more pronounced among low-income adults. However, routine visits (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.94-0.98]) and cholesterol testing (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.96]) decreased for low-income adults, while diabetes screening (RR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.95-1.08]) remained stable. Treatment for hypertension (RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.02-1.08]) increased, and diabetes-focused visits and insulin use remained stable. These patterns were similar for high-income adults. Across most outcomes, there were no differential changes between low-income adults residing in Medicaid expansion versus nonexpansion states. CONCLUSIONS: In this national study of working-age adults in the United States, measures of health care access improved for low- and high-income adults in 2021. However, routine outpatient visits and cardiovascular risk factor screening did not return to prepandemic levels, while risk factor treatment remained stable. As many coronavirus disease-era safety net policies come to an end, targeted strategies are needed to protect health care access and improve cardiovascular risk factor screening for working-age adults.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) survival: A quaternary center analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has emerged as a rescue strategy for nonresponders to conventional CPR (CCPR) in cardiac arrest. Definitive guidelines for ECPR deployment do not exist. Prior studies suggest that arrest rhythm and cardiac origin of arrest may be variables used to assess candidacy for ECPR. AIM: To describe a single-center experience with ECPR and to assess associations between survival and physician-adjudicated origin of arrest and arrest rhythm. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent ECPR at a quaternary care center over a 7-year period was performed. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the medical record and used to adjudicate the origin of cardiac arrest, etiology, rhythm, survival, and outcomes. Univariate analysis was performed to determine the association of patient and arrest characteristics with survival. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2017, 47 cardiac arrest patients were initiated on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at the time of active CPR. ECPR patient survival to hospital discharge was 25.5% (n = 12). Twenty-six patients died on ECMO (55.3%) while nine patients (19.1%) survived decannulation but died before discharge. Neither physician-adjudicated arrest rhythm nor underlying origin were significantly associated with survival to discharge, either alone or in combination. Younger age was significantly associated with survival. Nearly all survivors experienced myocardial recovery and left the hospital with a good neurological status. CONCLUSIONS: Arrest rhythm and etiology may be insufficient predictors of survival in ECPR utilization. Further multiinstitutional studies are needed to determine evidenced-based criteria for ECPR deployment.

Proactive tobacco cessation outreach to smokers of low socioeconomic status: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Widening socioeconomic disparities in mortality in the United States are largely explained by slower declines in tobacco use among smokers of low socioeconomic status (SES) than among those of higher SES, which points to the need for targeted tobacco cessation interventions. Documentation of smoking status in electronic health records (EHRs) provides the tools for health systems to proactively offer tobacco treatment to socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a proactive tobacco cessation strategy that addresses sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use for low-SES smokers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial included low-SES adult smokers who described their race and/or ethnicity as black, Hispanic, or white and received primary care at 1 of 13 practices in the greater Boston area (intervention group, n = 399; control group, n = 308). INTERVENTIONS: We analyzed EHRs to identify potentially eligible participants and then used interactive voice response (IVR) techniques to reach out to them. Consenting patients were randomized to either receive usual care from their own health care team or enter an intervention program that included (1) telephone-based motivational counseling, (2) free nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for 6 weeks, (3) access to community-based referrals to address sociocontextual mediators of tobacco use, and (4) integration of all these components into their normal health care through the EHR system. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported past-7-day tobacco abstinence 9 months after randomization ("quitting"), assessed by automated caller or blinded study staff. RESULTS: The intervention group had a higher quit rate than the usual care group (17.8% vs 8.1%; odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.0; number needed to treat, 10). We examined whether use of intervention components was associated with quitting among individuals in the intervention group: individuals who participated in the telephone counseling were more likely to quit than those who did not (21.2% vs 10.4%; P < .001). There was no difference in quitting by use of NRT. Quitting did not differ by a request for a community referral, but individuals who used their referral were more likely to quit than those who did not (43.6% vs 15.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Proactive, IVR-facilitated outreach enables engagement with low-SES smokers. Providing counseling, NRT, and access to community-based resources to address sociocontextual mediators among smokers reached in this setting is effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01156610.

Accuracy of race, ethnicity, and language preference in an electronic health record.

BACKGROUND: Collection of data on race, ethnicity, and language preference is required as part of the "meaningful use" of electronic health records (EHRs). These data serve as a foundation for interventions to reduce health disparities. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the accuracy of EHR-recorded data on race, ethnicity, and language preference to that reported directly by patients. DESIGN/SUBJECTS/MAIN MEASURES: Data collected as part of a tobacco cessation intervention for minority and low-income smokers across a network of 13 primary care clinics (n = 569). KEY RESULTS: Patients were more likely to self-report Hispanic ethnicity (19.6 % vs. 16.6 %, p < 0.001) and African American race (27.0 % vs. 20.4 %, p < 0.001) than was reported in the EHR. Conversely, patients were less likely to complete the survey in Spanish than the language preference noted in the EHR suggested (5.1 % vs. 6.3 %, p < 0.001). Thirty percent of whites self-reported identification with at least one other racial or ethnic group, as did 37.0 % of Hispanics, and 41.0 % of African Americans. Over one-third of EHR-documented Spanish speakers elected to take the survey in English. One-fifth of individuals who took the survey in Spanish were recorded in the EHR as English-speaking. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate important inaccuracies and the need for better processes to document race/ ethnicity and language preference in EHRs.